4 ms·

There is no magic, nor room for it for any person that believes in the scientific method. There are a sufficient number of real mysteries and wonders not to was

There is no magic, nor room for it for any person that believes in the scientific method. There are a sufficient number of real mysteries and wonders not to waste time with pseudoscience. The brain is not a consciousness antennae, and there are no good reasons to think so. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon entirely dependent on and contained within the brain.

unsui 5y ago
agreed. brain-as-a-radio-antenna is a common trope amongst those who would believe that meatspace isn't capable of generating consciousness alone (always looking for some sort of elan vital, to equate with another pursuit for the magic stuff of life). From a purposely scientific perspective, we have to begin with the working assumption that materialism is true, until such point that it is conclusively proven false. There is no evidence that the brain works in any way like an antenna, at least insofar as any electromagnetic waves or other such messaging systems supported by the physics of our current world as we know it. Thus, the brain-as-antenna thinking necessarily pre-supposes an other-worldly explanation; it assumes what it's trying to prove. Even if it were true (HIGHLY unlikely), we can't begin with that as the starting point in our search for understanding it. Otherwise, our brains are incredibly adept at shaping our thoughts and concepts to fit those prescribed notions of animacy and otherworldliness. It's no wonder that many pseudoscientific principles BEGIN with the presupposition that you have to be willing to believe in order for the effect to become apparent.
- bidaewnl 5y ago
  Except materialism has been proven false for the past 100 years thanks to quantum mechanics. There is mountains of evidence against it and none for it.
  - unsui 5y ago
    This is laughably false. Materialism, aka "physicalism", simply posits that all phenomena have an underlying physical basis, i.e., no "spooky" or magic stuff. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ Quantum mechanics follows from physicalism by demonstrating that the physical nature of reality is incredibly complex and counterintuitive, particularly at quantum scales. But that in no way implies that quantum mechanics leads to non-materialism or opens the door for materialism to be false. It simply becomes subsumed into materialism itself: materialism requires that all phenomena be ultimately explainable via physical explanations, and those explanations must account for quantum-mechanical phenomena.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  We can actually show that consciousness persists even when surrounded by shielding that would prevent the passage of any known particle or radiation except neutrinos from affecting whatever is inside. If you shut off all outside signals, the brain works just fine, there's no effect at all. (Except maybe the stress of whatever situation you're in that landed you in a super shielded bunker. )
- antonvs 5y ago
  > Thus, the brain-as-antenna thinking necessarily pre-supposes an other-worldly explanation; it assumes what it's trying to prove. Materialism does the same thing though, as you observed: > we have to begin with the working assumption that materialism is true To be clear, I'm a materialist, but that's precisely why I dislike poor arguments.
p_j_w 5y ago
>Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon entirely dependent on and contained within the brain. How would one falsify this?
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  At some point, through mathematics or a sufficient resolution of simulation, we will be able to run software that achieves consciousness. Through rigorous proof, the first method will provide the basis for falsifiable conjecture and exploration of the phenomena of consciousness and subjective experience. The second path will require laborious, tedious, and methodical experimentation with the model to tease out the underlying math. Consciousness exists. It ceases to exist when the brain is damaged or killed. We can predictably modify conscious systems with drugs and experiences. Particular types of injury and illness sometimes result in predictable consequences, letting us know things such as that the hippocampus is critical to memory, and that whatever hierarchy of semantic meaning is stored in the brain, neurons in the hippocampus represent ontological peaks in the mental landscape of constructed meaning. With a sufficiently high resolution brain interface, you could record, replay, simulate, and share experiences between consciousnesses. If the mind is an emergent phenomena brought about within the confines of the skull, shared experience will be possible, up to the point that your subjective experience of being another person will be complete for the duration of the replay. If there's some outside factor playing a role in consciousness, it will be missing and likely prevent attempts at recording experience.
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    You haven't said how it can be falsified here, though. How sound a scientific footing is any of that really on then if we can't actually experiment?

unsui 5y ago

agreed. brain-as-a-radio-antenna is a common trope amongst those who would believe that meatspace isn't capable of generating consciousness alone (always looking for some sort of elan vital, to equate with another pursuit for the magic stuff of life). From a purposely scientific perspective, we have to begin with the working assumption that materialism is true, until such point that it is conclusively proven false. There is no evidence that the brain works in any way like an antenna, at least insofar as any electromagnetic waves or other such messaging systems supported by the physics of our current world as we know it. Thus, the brain-as-antenna thinking necessarily pre-supposes an other-worldly explanation; it assumes what it's trying to prove. Even if it were true (HIGHLY unlikely), we can't begin with that as the starting point in our search for understanding it. Otherwise, our brains are incredibly adept at shaping our thoughts and concepts to fit those prescribed notions of animacy and otherworldliness. It's no wonder that many pseudoscientific principles BEGIN with the presupposition that you have to be willing to believe in order for the effect to become apparent.

bidaewnl 5y ago
Except materialism has been proven false for the past 100 years thanks to quantum mechanics. There is mountains of evidence against it and none for it.
- unsui 5y ago
  This is laughably false. Materialism, aka "physicalism", simply posits that all phenomena have an underlying physical basis, i.e., no "spooky" or magic stuff. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ Quantum mechanics follows from physicalism by demonstrating that the physical nature of reality is incredibly complex and counterintuitive, particularly at quantum scales. But that in no way implies that quantum mechanics leads to non-materialism or opens the door for materialism to be false. It simply becomes subsumed into materialism itself: materialism requires that all phenomena be ultimately explainable via physical explanations, and those explanations must account for quantum-mechanical phenomena.
robbedpeter 5y ago
We can actually show that consciousness persists even when surrounded by shielding that would prevent the passage of any known particle or radiation except neutrinos from affecting whatever is inside. If you shut off all outside signals, the brain works just fine, there's no effect at all. (Except maybe the stress of whatever situation you're in that landed you in a super shielded bunker. )
antonvs 5y ago
> Thus, the brain-as-antenna thinking necessarily pre-supposes an other-worldly explanation; it assumes what it's trying to prove. Materialism does the same thing though, as you observed: > we have to begin with the working assumption that materialism is true To be clear, I'm a materialist, but that's precisely why I dislike poor arguments.

p_j_w 5y ago

>Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon entirely dependent on and contained within the brain. How would one falsify this?

robbedpeter 5y ago
At some point, through mathematics or a sufficient resolution of simulation, we will be able to run software that achieves consciousness. Through rigorous proof, the first method will provide the basis for falsifiable conjecture and exploration of the phenomena of consciousness and subjective experience. The second path will require laborious, tedious, and methodical experimentation with the model to tease out the underlying math. Consciousness exists. It ceases to exist when the brain is damaged or killed. We can predictably modify conscious systems with drugs and experiences. Particular types of injury and illness sometimes result in predictable consequences, letting us know things such as that the hippocampus is critical to memory, and that whatever hierarchy of semantic meaning is stored in the brain, neurons in the hippocampus represent ontological peaks in the mental landscape of constructed meaning. With a sufficiently high resolution brain interface, you could record, replay, simulate, and share experiences between consciousnesses. If the mind is an emergent phenomena brought about within the confines of the skull, shared experience will be possible, up to the point that your subjective experience of being another person will be complete for the duration of the replay. If there's some outside factor playing a role in consciousness, it will be missing and likely prevent attempts at recording experience.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  You haven't said how it can be falsified here, though. How sound a scientific footing is any of that really on then if we can't actually experiment?